1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to a compilation of electronically published entries. More specifically, the invention relates to such a compilation whose entries are subject to successive revision as determined by elections.
2. Description of Background Art
There is a recognized need for compilations such as reference works, e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, thesauruses. Such works may contain entries on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular subject. Librarians often recommend well-written, authoritative and reliable compilations as a starting point for research.
Compilations may be written for different purposes and have differing levels of specialization. For example, general-purpose encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica are sometimes considered remedial in nature. In contrast, scholarly encyclopedias may discuss the “state of research” and set forth generally accepted views about a specialized area. Furthermore, governments may author and update laws in the form of compilations, e.g., the United States Code and the United States Code of Federal Regulations.
Comprehensiveness is a desirable quality for authoritative reference works. For example, many consider the Oxford English Dictionary to be the ultimate reference work in English lexicography because it spans 20 volumes and includes extensive cross-references and word etymologies. Similarly, the reputation of a reference work's author, editor and/or publisher may also contribute to the authority of the work. For example, metallurgists often consider the ASM Handbook, by ASM International Handbook Committee, as an authoritative reference work on metals and alloys.
With the wide availability of reference works in electronic form, an unprecedented and ever-increasing wealth of information is now available to computer users via the internet Containing numerous of web sites dedicated to a wide range of topics, the internet has become an increasingly useful resource for researchers. Unfortunately, the abundance of both good and bad information, combined with the structure of the internet renders the internet itself incapable of serving as a high-quality compilation. For example, anyone with access to the internet can post web sites about topics that interest him or her. These sites are not always accurate and may not reasonably serve as an authoritative source of information.
The internet by its nature has no hierarchical structure. Most information on the internet is found using online search engines that employ indices formed by “web crawlers” that parse pages on the web, the pages to which those pages link, and so on. The indices used by search engines are typically based on words found on those pages, as well as position, prominence, frequency of user access, and other attributes. Results are typically returned in a linear list of items, based on some form of ranking. For example, the items may be presented in descending ranked order, determined based on the attributes mined regarding the usage of the word or words included in the search, the frequency of access by users, or other attributes.
A number of patents and patent applications describe automated database and search engine technologies. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,978,798 to Pozbabski et al. describes methods and apparatuses for accessing databases. U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999 to Page describes a method for node ranking in a linked database. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060031214 to Solaro et al. describes an adaptive categorical presentation of search results. Similarly, methods that allow for semi-automatic construction of a knowledge base of encyclopedia question answering system are discussed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050086222 to Wang et al.
The automated approach, however, has its drawbacks because it merely sorts possibly relevant information from irrelevant information. False positive results occur with high frequency. In addition, automated search approaches are not generally useful to determine whether any hit that turns up is an authoritative source.
Recently, user editable web-published compilations have gained in popularity. The Wikipedia® website at http://www.wikipedia.org contains a well-known example of a user-editable compilation based on wiki technology. Changes to the website's articles are reflected in a substantially instantaneous or real-time manner. The website describes itself as one of the most-used reference resources on the internet
The Wikipedia® website has become increasingly controversial. Supporters of the website praise the website for making it possible to create or update articles quickly in response to current events. In addition, supporters assume that by exposing the articles of the website to open editing by many users will result in improved accuracy over time. In contrast, others maintain that non-expert editing undermines quality of the website, rendering the website unauthoritative and unreliable. The website has also been criticized as exhibiting severe systemic bias and inconsistency, due to the group dynamics associated with the website's users. Furthermore, the website has been challenged for its use of dubious sources, its disregard for credentials, and its vulnerability to vandalism and crackpot interest groups. In sum, supporters applaud the website for its vitality; critics dismiss the website for its vulgarity.
Public controversy arose when a then-anonymous editor planted false information in a Wikipedia® entry on John Seigenthaler Sr., a former administrative assistant and pallbearer to Robert Kennedy to play a joke a colleague of the editor who knew the Seigenthaler family. The entry falsely suggested that, Seigenthaler had a role in the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. Ordinary Wikipedia® visitors did not immediately recognize the hoax as such, and no correction was made for over four months. Seigenthaler wrote an article describing the particulars of the incident and criticized the website for offering arguably libelous and hurtful material to a wide audience. The article also indicated that the falsehoods remained on other websites such as answers.com and reference.com for three more weeks after their removal from the Wikipedia® website.
Seigenthaler is not alone in his criticism of the Wikipedia® website. Critics of the Wikipedia® website include, for example, editors themselves, ex-editors, and subjects of articles. A website critical of the Wikipedia® website can be found at www.wikitruth.info. The wikitruth website has been a self-described “free scandal sheet that anyone can visit” that provides documentation of ongoing “atrocities” published on the Wikipedia® website. FIG. 2 shows a banner that provides a tongue-in-cheek criticism of the Wikipedia® website. Another critical website as of Jul. 17, 2006 can be found at www.wikipedia-watch.org. As a result, many librarians, academics and editors consider the Wikipedia® website as having no or limited utility as a reference work.
Another problem associated with the Wikipedia® website, according to its critics, is that it is a work overseen by an oligarchy composed of its “cult” of administrators, stewards, and bureaucrats. For example, the website indicates that its maintenance tasks are performed by a hierarchical governing group of volunteer developers, stewards, bureaucrats, and administrators. The website is a self-described work of “consensus” rather than elections. The website also indicates that Jim Wales, a founder (or cofounder with Larry Sanger) of the website, “retains final judgment on Wikipedia policies and user guidelines.” Critics have derisively referred to Wales as the “God-King Jimbo.”
Wikipedia® administrators have the power to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community “policy.” Due to the open nature of the website, disputes between editors often arise. As a result, disputing editors may continually undo the changes made by each others, resulting in “edit wars.” When one disputing editor is an administrator and another is not, the administrator may “win” an edit war by blocking temporarily or permanently the editor who is not an administrator from editing the website. In effect, an ordinary editor can be viewed as an inferior or “second class” Wikipedia® “citizen” relative to a Wikipedia® administrator. Unequal treatment of similarly situated human individuals violates the equal protection principles set forth in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Wikipedia® users may become administrators by meeting fluctuating criterion determined by the governing group. Critics have also likened the process of becoming a Wikipedia® administrator to a “beauty contest.” It is reportedly nearly impossible to remove the powers from administrators because the governing group both set and execute Wikipedia® policy and the power structure of the Wikipedia® website involves power devolved from one source, i.e., Wales, in a top-down rather than bottom-up manner. Users may be further alienated by Wikipedia® jargon or “doublespeak.” As a result, users often become discouraged from making further contributions amid charges of abuse of power and lack of due process. In short, critics consider the Wikipedia® website as containing the work of a “mob” or as a “cult-of-personality” rather than containing the work of a true democracy.
Critics further charge that the Wikipedia® website now exercises an undue influence on what passes for reliable information due to the site's popularity. Search engines often rank Wikipedia® pages near the top, and the pages are often scraped to carry ads. According to www.wikipedia-watch.org, “it is primarily Google's fault” that the Wikipedia® website has turned into a massive spam and gossip generator. Further according to www.wikipedia-watch.org, “Google doesn't care; their ad money comes right off the top.”
Alternative technologies involving group efforts are known as well. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060122859 to Feldman et al. describes a computer-implemented method for computer supported cooperative work that involve member voting and decision making through document management. In general, elections are held to approve or disapprove of the contents of a document rather than to provide alternatives and revisions. In addition, the method suffers from many of the flaws that plague the Wikipedia® website. For example, the method requires actions to be taken by one or more “coordinators” with powers similar to those possessed by Wikipedia® administrators. The coordinator can arbitrarily and capriciously approve membership, determine whether any submitted document is subject to voting, change the configuration of the system at any time in an instantaneously effective manner, disregard the outcome of a vote, etc. Accordingly, the method may be characterized as an invitation for abuse of power. Additional collaborative writing technologies are described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030060910 to Williams et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,671,428 to Muranaga et al. None of these patents and publications satisfactorily addresses all the problems discussed above.
Thus, opportunities exist to overcome the drawbacks as discussed above and to provide alternatives and improvements to known electronic compilation technologies to enhance comprehensiveness and reliability of compilations such as authoritative references works.